Matthew 19 Question on Divorce
Alright, well, I'm going to begin with a little bit of personal testimony of preparing for this. Made me think back over the over the years, in the summer of 1998. I learned about the ministry of the tub. JC studies Wright Center for today, Christian Studies. And I ordered why priors introductory teaching, which is that point was called are Hebrew Lord. That's basically 12 teachings on six, cassette tapes. If I remember correctly, it's been a long time since I've listened to the tapes, but you know, the beginning words, they're really kind of etched in my memory, I put in the first cassette and Dwight came on saying who was Jesus And he proceeded to tell me. Note for many years, I feel like known Jesus as Lord and Savior and certainly knew that he was from the tribe of Judah. But I really hadn't known Jesus before as a Jewish man from the 1st century and of course, that ends up making a lot of difference. Dwight as some robbers, man's name was affiliated with the Jewish, some school for synoptic research, a group of Scholars, some Christian, some Jewish who came together to learn about Jesus together. One of their main sources that they were drawing from. Is this literature that we've been talking about today, And so that gave a hint of, you know, there's something of value here. There's something to the look into a little further.
So we're doing some missions 9 today, right? We all have kind of our personal views on white, onion on why we're doing these things and Kyla, probably the groundwork. So I'm going to say too much here, but again, I got my own personal feelings on this. So certainly we start learning about this literature to understand Jesus, in this teaching, in first-century context. We find out about all the things that Jesus had in common with those around him. Did you enjoy those who said it first segment? And Rob's of parallels, with / KCA vote. There's really just sort of a tremendous amount of of Common Ground here to look into that. Some more, one of the books in Kyle's reference list abroad, young, some meet, the rabbi's is a really good source by Brad. Young horse is a student of David Foster writing. You involved with this all along, for example, bride young goes to The Sermon on the Mount and basically kind of Point by point. He gives her many parallels to basically all the teachings, they're just runs through the entire Sermon on the Mount. He doesn't give an explanation as to what the parallels meaning. As I was saying like, that's that's really a research question, I think he's one of those parallels is a different research question for future Generations. How did it, you know, how did this teaching, develop? We're probably not through learning. I need to make sure we're not true through learning about this. We learn about the things that Jesus had in common with those around him. Also the differences. This reminds me of another story when a number of years ago after Roman, we're meeting in the evening. All we had movies, brakes and services were you know take a minute and go shake hands with the person next to you. I personally, I'm glad we don't do those much. They make me feel uncomfortable, like I can't make small talk on demand. I just isn't doesn't work for me.
But, but I happened to be next to the Russo. And so we ask and, you know, we found out it was from Oxford ride in and asking, nobody, you're going to why you coming over here from Oxford and, you know, in 25 words or less. and I was basically kind of speechless because the story of that I could, you know, I could spend an hour telling if I wrote it down in advance
But one answer I could have given was a come, this far to come to a church where they don't do Pharisee bashing. It's worth it. Actually, what happens is that the gospels become three-dimensional and the people that Jesus was feeling with are not one-dimensional, cardboard, cutout Hypocrites, is something the real life people trying to follow God, people a lot like you and I, and it's really valuable to, to understand them. Another thing that I was also getting into, certainly we've come to better understand Jesus's Bible through the contact with the midrashic literature in particular. when we consider the Torah or do anything in the, in the Old Testament, We really are entering a conversation that is been going on. Ongoing conversation has been going on for over two thousand years with people are people of God studying the scriptures and asking questions about the man in learning from each other. And so, when we do the things, we enter into that conversation and learning about what our predecessors, both Christian and Jewish have said about these things. Really just opens things up. Yo, you learn about questions. You never considered asking the Open up hold discussions and be. We've seen that we see this until I study week in and week out. I think
And certainly growing in wisdom. There's a lot of wisdom. For example, a k, a vote. All right, besides all the pillows and Jesus was just a tremendous amount of wisdom. They are. And so, of course, you know, we could done we could ask away and I wasn't. Isn't this literature from? You know, the Jews who didn't follow Jesus and Angela is certainly. Yeah. And if we want to find things that we disagree with me, but it's not easy to do and we can do a whole seminar about them, but what would be the point we be basically carrying on an argument with people who aren't here. And with whom we have very little contact if we lived in the in Israel or in Brooklyn, that this could probably be relevant. But in Dayton Ohio, it's not really relevant. And the constructive thing is to learn from other. People have got the fact that there is so much wisdom there riding in, this is even after Jesus came tells us something about God as well. God doesn't give up on people easily. He hasn't given up on the Jewish people. There's they still learned there still have learned things over the centuries and those are things that benefit us to And so we come to it, not just with them, trying to pick it apart, for example, but but, but some looking at what we can learn about Tina with our own Walks With God.
Now, today I want to Give an example of the benefit of these things have been talkin about for understanding the gospels, and I'm going to get into a challenging example.
That's a familiar one for Matthew 19:3. Some Pharisees came to him and to test him. They ask is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any? Cause that's the question. All new testament commentary, Matthew commentaries, will Gibson rabbinic background and this all agree that it's that's going to be pretty relevant here. The most some extensive. Discussion. I've seen comes from David and stone Brewer.
David and Stone Brewery is a Baptist scholar who works at Tyndale house in Cambridge England has to work for many years. He knows as much about the rabbinic literature is is any Christian I know of really, and then this is a good book. I should mention that for those of you at church of the Messiah, your contributions helped to pay for a very nice of you that we have with Logos Bible Software. We have access to all of their logos, mobile education courses. Basically Seminary level courses on Bible and Theology and etcetera. David and some girl has to one that's called Jesus as rabbi. And the other one is called biblical biblical sexual ethics. They're both really excellent and I highly recommend them. And if you're not hooked into that yet, Rob can I can help you with that.
so, let's talk about some background. That will help us to look at this question that Jesus is being asked and it is answer.
Soap things to know about is well what did what did divorce look like in the first century? What were the grounds for divorce? You know, what sports do, you know what? Most of the subject matter here? So in somewhere has isolated basically live with the first century grounds for divorce were And the first thing I have listed there is infertility and and I should explain that that the, the Jews in that Society took very seriously, Genesis 1:28, the command to be fruitful. And multiply
Actually there was a discussion about this one of the ones between the house of Helen the house of, shall I write. Hello. And Sam. I came from the generation right before Jesus and our lives overlap significantly with Jesus is life. Are the house of Shem. I said that you was okay. So the question is your how many children should we have? And House of Shem. I said, I should have two children. Following example of Moses. Anna. Elsa pillow sad. A boy and a girl song example. Just God created the male or female. But everybody agreed that it was pretty important to be fruitful and multiply. So if a couple tried for a number of years and were not able to Bear children, sometimes the husband would divorce his wife to try again with another wife. So that wasn't what kind of divorce that happened? Skipping down to the one at the bottom. Certainly unfaithfulness was up to be a cause for divorce and in that Society, there was widespread expectation, that if a man's wife was cheating on him that he would divorce her. We had kind of a hint of this actually, in Matthew chapter 10. Remember Joseph finds out that Mary is pregnant and when he first finds out about that, he considers divorcing her, it's part of that culture. That was what was kind of expected in that in that situation.
And another cause for divorce could be what you could call material or emotional neglect neglect. And this was based on Exodus 21 verse 10. So let's talk about Exodus 21 person 10,
So this is a case about a situation. Where a man has a wife, who is a slave? So this would be like, with Hagar billharz Opa. By a man, has a wife, who is a servant or slave and then takes another wife of higher status. What the case says, is, if this man takes on another wife to himself, he should not diminish. Her food her clothing or her marital rights. In other words, you cannot treat this servant wife. Why do didn't come in with a dowry if another wife comes in? Who does have a dowry? He's not supposed to mistreat. The first wife and should not diminish her food or clothing or her marital rights. Based on these criteria. The sages reason reason. Well if this is good for a slave wife this is good for any wife. Any wife deserves food and clothing in another rights and marital rights and so these things were the basis for marriage contracts. And marriage. Vows in those days.
And in the, in the mishnah.
one thing that we find our, some mom rulings On what what are the, what are the guidelines for for these kinds of things? What are the things that the wife is suspect is expected to do as far as providing food and clothing and what are the things that the husband is supposed to provide? This isn't a track tape called country boat that will probably be familiar to Hebrew students are because, of course, the candy bar was a marriage contract Verizon. So this was a track date. That was dealing with some issues involving the and Bobby marriage contracts.
And if people in the world would you want them thinking about a divorce? They would go before a court and right, then I'll bring out some grievances and rulings were made one of the gum in these situations. But they tended to do was too. If somebody wasn't meeting the conditions of the marriage contract, they felt they would love you finds basically shelter. You've got to go. He's got to give someone so much and put it in the white story. And the wife's at fault, she said to give up such and such from her Dowry and the hope is that they will reconcile and it's a person who is not a feeling that, you know, the contract will will step up and and repent and they'll be reconciliation in. They'll be able to to move on. Right. Divorce is a last resort. And you know, I'm the course they got into all of these areas. So in the, in the area of marital rights that can be sensitive, there was a question about. Well, how often should husbands and wives be coming together at a, at a minimum?
So there ain't getting into this and it says, so this is what I think it's the fifth chapter, he takes a vow not to have sexual relations with his wife. So let's say somebody wants to pray and fast and they're going to be celibate for a little bit. How long should they do that? The school is Sean Li says, for two weeks and the school of Hillel for 1 week. Disciples Goforth for Torah study without consent for 30 days. Heather, Robertson good insults. 30 days to study everyday. If you are unemployed, you should make yourself useful. Somehow, write workers twice a week ask drivers at once. A week, drivers. Once in thirty days Sailors. Once in 6 months, It says the words of Rabbi Eliezer Robbie laser was late for centuries or 280. The one you know 2080 in the course of these things started with Hillel and shammai so this was stuff that was around during during Jesus's time. And then it talks about the fines that you do. If somebody wasn't wasn't stepping up to help their wives,
So, again, the goal was to promote reconciliation with divorce as a as a last resort. And none of the things I've talked about so far are controversial. They said it was agreed throughout the Jewish world. That no divorce was not desirable, but it was something that I know that did happen sometimes that was, you know, that that's the, that's the way it was to be avoided. But, you know, sometimes I would have to happen.
That one thing that was controversial was the interpretation of Deuteronomy 24 verse 1.
And this has to do with the situation of a man who divorces his wife and then it says that he can't turn around and remarry that wife later. But the chapter begins by saying if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he's found some indecency in her, And the phrase, some indecency is, it isn't unusual in the Hebrew, it's a rod. The bar, I'll literally the indecency of a matter. I said to not Define very precisely. And so there was disagreement about what, what was it exactly? Was, was in here, what were the grounds for for the divorce? That was what was going on here and the house of Hell On The House of Shamu show. Two different things.
And the controversy has recorded another track tie to the mission on Guillotine. Remember a Jewish divorce certificate was called to get and the teen has things about divorce certificate. So the house of Hillel felt that there was some and the who were some of redundancy in the wording. Why didn't you just say indecency? Why did it say in decency of a thing about have a matter and sohila decided that there must be actually two grounds being discussed here? One was some indecency, and the other is a thing. Anything at all? He decided, So he'll do both believed that if you know you with your wife. Just please you in any way that that divorce was okay.
I noticed it says, if then she finds no favor in his eyes and the Rabbi Akiva a century or so later. Right, we heard about him today back that up by saying, yes, he finds no favorite. Is that means, you know, maybe she didn't think she was pretty. Price of the House of Hillel said, do you know, I do?
To be anything at all.
The house of Shem, I disagreed. And they said no it wasn't indecency of a matter. It was actually a matter of indecency was really just sexual immorality. That was that wasn't enough in the discussion that comes out at that place.
And so what happened was because of Hill House ruling, it seems to become popular in that area for people that have a kind of no-fault divorce. If you could give since you agreed with hell, I'll believe that. Anything at all was was okay. As a grounds, the idea would be that we wanted to divorce his wife. The judge didn't ask, why? Because you could do it for anything at all, you didn't have to bring your wife and public and subject her to any embarrassment you weren't claiming. You didn't want to say that either were claiming that the wife wasn't being the marriage contract. And so the wife kept the diary But this is kind of Alpena went on and no fault divorce. I've got a few.
Things I want to do, quote.
And so the idea that any cause divorce became popular and we have witnesses that in different sources. So and here I got some choices than our preventing sources. Right there, part of that General, library of historical sources that sound that we need to look into Philo Alexandria, right? Lived in the first century. All right, and I ride in Alexandria. He says in his book, special laws another commandment is that if a woman after parting from her husband for any cause whatever. So he recognizes that that was something that happened Josephus in his autobiography Vengeance at one point at this. I divorce my wife being displeased her behavior So apparently that wasn't any cause kind of thing, right? This could have been And in Antiquities, when he's discussing things in the tour, he says he who desires to be divorced from the wife who was living with him for whatsoever. Cause and with Mortals many such may arise must certify in writing. Etc. Etc. So and Josephus is riding the late for a century, right? So they're attesting to the fact that this kind of divorce became popular. That's probably also the kind of divorce. It's being referred to a NOC you one. Or remember, it says that when Joseph found out that Mary was pregnant, his first thought was to divorce her private and that would mean this kind of been divorced for you. Don't drag Mary through anything. Say hey, you're someone who commits adultery, he just wants to to do this and not embarrass her and you know I can go ahead and do this.
When a divorce record.
It's important to understand that those always gave the wife the right to remarry and all Jewish divorce certificate said, you were free to marry any man, you wish. Of course that doesn't mean, you know any matter what should be a Jewish man, shouldn't be the husband but the priest, but basically any man you wish to the wife, wasn't there any more under the control of the of her husband?
now, another thing that's mentioned in that tractates, Guillotine. Is that presumably? It could happen that maybe the somebody messed up the divorce certificate. And unfortunate that what the ruling says in that situation is that if that happened then the woman remarried and then found out that our divorce certificate was invalid on technical grounds. Then she was treated as having been committed to seven commit adultery and would have to leave the second husband as well. And really fair of Wilmington be in a penalized for something that wasn't her fault. Presumably, this was a rare occurrence, right. I hope it. I hope it never happened but there's a ruling in truck. Take to get to you about it.
All right, so with this background, we can get back to more profitably to the question that Jesus was asked. are we can see, the remember the question was
is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any? Cause so the question specifically is about Deuteronomy 24. Actually. They're asking about this any cause divorce. What's the way to read Deuteronomy 20:4? 1 as hell? Are we doing it right? It's am I doing it right? Presumably, they weren't worried about these other things about divorce, other grounds for divorce, break into the marriage contract. And so on those things weren't controversial in Jewish life at that point and ask about it. And I can help us with the gospels, as well. In Matthews, the one that mentions the for any cause if you look in Mark's account at the parallel,
Not marked an adverse to some Pharisees came in. The testing they asked for the Perla, right? Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?
if you just look at that straight on, You do you think the answer is his divorce, right? Or wrong? But probably not the question. He was being as probably the Ferengi causes implied there for Century. Readers would have understood that was the controversial thing divorcee. I was something that was something that happened. If it wasn't done and everybody agreed about that. What about this? Any cause divorce? That sub was based on particular, reading of Deuteronomy 24 verse 1.
So Jesus begins his answer by kind of laying some groundwork. He doesn't answer this directly at first, but he's giving the big picture that the young. You know, why? Right answer should be based upon. So Jesus says, an inverse for have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning, made them male and female. Write a reference to Genesis 1:27 and said for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh Genesis 2:24. So hear he's really looking at what was God's purpose for marriage from back at creation and he's giving a strong argument for monogamy in particular? Now, polygamy was still allowed at that point in the Jewish World. It was becoming less popular with starting to go out of style. And there certainly were some that were certainly some groups of Jews who were against it and in particular, the folks at qumran, we're against the polygamy. and actually in the one of the combine documents in the Damascus document, there's an argument basically like this one that's in its linking Genesis 2:24 with Genesis 79 which says that the you know that everybody came in the ark two by two I want by 3oh, you know. So I just took two, two by two by two, some of the techniques that the course we've already talked about a lighter too heavy or thing in regard to Exodus 21:10 here. There was probably, some guys are all shiv are going on. In Genesis 2:24 it says in the two shall become one flesh, now the mess already text actually doesn't say too but knows the situation does. And probably using that version is one you can connect with Genesis 79 that says they went in the ark, two by two. And it talks about the, the man and his wife in that passage and just paid the male and female. So this is linking with with Genesis one, as well. And so, so Jesus is saying something pretty important, right? That marriage should be monogamous and it should be lifelong. That's what God intended to get back to what God, intended that at creation. So I he said, hey, they don't no longer two but one flesh, therefore what God has joined together. Let no one separate.
so, he's arguing for write-up for monogamy and for the lifelong nature of marriage, Now, the. Those he was talking with honey and I wanted to steer him again to this Deuteronomy 24 question.
So why then did Moses command one to give her a certificate of divorce in to send her away to the command from Moses? It was talking about when somebody divorce this would happen but there wasn't widespread. Feeling at that point that in particular, for four cases of unfaithfulness. That the husband should divorce his wife. If that was if that was happening
Okay, so Jesus turns this around a little bit. What time did Moses command one? And Jesus said, well, because of your Hardness of Heart, Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning, it was not. So, so Jesus is saying, okay, you know, that divorce is okay allowed. and there's a reason for that Hardness of Heart, which is basically You know, stubbornness like the kind of stiff neck and has described in scripture. So, in a case where,
Of the person who's wrong. The other partner was not repentant and will not change and it's just hard hard about it. Then the divorce may have to happen but it's too loud. But not. What would be the ideal? Not not God's ideal for this. So that the idea for this is the truck people to forgive each other until then to reconcile.
and then Jesus goes on to say,
And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife except for unchastity and marries another commits adultery. And this is the place where he gets at Deuteronomy 20:4, 1, what was that? Matter of indecency? Okay, it's just the, it's just unchastity. It's just the sexual immorality. so, another words,
Okay, if your divorce but you really coming adultery, that means your divorce was invalid and we talked about what you know the one somebody's divorce was invalid that was considered to be like adultery. So Jesus is staying here in the fact that any cause divorces are invalid. Now if we look at this without the background we might well assume that he's saying that sexual immorality is the only possible allowable ground for divorce and that anybody who divorces Contra marry again.
That do ends up not making so much sense in the context. And of course it is ends up raises questions, certainly was. Jesus really saying that if a spouse has been abused? That abuse stays on? Should you tell that spouse? Well you need to hang in there and take it because Jesus said so order for divorce occurs from this is the spouse has been abused punished by never being allowed to marry again. Is it valid questions to ask her? Dividends from Brewers, take on this is, then the context. What's being discussed here is just the any caused divorces uses the same. Those are invalid. He's not really touching the subject of divorce is for people breaking their marriage contract neglecting or abusing each other. Those might have to happen. But in those cases, you know, everybody agrees. Those did because of Hardness of Heart, those would happen sometimes His argument. I'm just giving a little bit of it here. It's a long argument but I find it quite persuasive. I think you probably got a good handle on the best I've heard on what's going on here.
No, right. After this in the text. It says his disciples said to him is such, as the case of a man with his wife, it's better not to marry.
and, you know, you might some Maybe I'll paraphrase it this way, so if we can't just cut and run when the going gets tough, maybe this is not such a great idea.
I'm okay. And so then just who just talked with him about this, but he said that I'm not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given
this is not for everybody. For there are units have been so from birth and they're eunuchs have been made eunuchs by others and are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. Let anyone except this who can and will do things. He's saying here. Is that okay it's not absolutely required that everybody Merry. Was Jesus himself, right? And it wasn't the special circumstance in and then didn't marry. One thing that implies that you actually hear he's speaking to one of the other things that I mentioned earlier, this means then that in Mankind's fulfilling that the injunction to be fruitful and multiply that's not like everybody has to contribute to children do this, right? The humanity is a whole has two but maybe not. Everybody is required to have to have kids. There are ways I think, you know, singleness is not a bad thing. It's something what, you know, you can serve God being single just as well as you can serve God being married, their different callings for different people.
So, so what important consequence here in Stoneboro points out, is it since marriage is not compulsory, not, everyone is required to have children, and that means there really shouldn't be any divorces for infertility.
If the couple was unable to to, to be married, at the husband, didn't have to feel, it was his Duty due to go out swear and Rob was bringing out an old romantic story about a situation like that were a couple felt that they had to had to separate. Did they work? Really their duty to do so and I have to get Rob back to remember all the the details I wasn't doing compared to maybe go rehearse the story but the gist of it is the husband tells his wife. He's heartbroken over this, he feels it's his duty because it's like, you know, you can take whatever whatever you want. And the wife basically says what, what what I want actually is you. That's the most valuable thing.
And then the couple did subsequently have children after after, that's a really sweet story and Rob can give you these stuff, we can look back in an email from a few weeks ago that took that has the details.
Alright, so let's look at then kind of summarize. What Jesus is teaching here. So, first off marriage should be monogamous.
Instant drawer feels that, you know, one thing that's true. And then in the New Testament, as we noticed that there were in the early church, a whole lot of unmarried widows They're probably going to various reasons for that, but I think I may will just depend if there were more women who were coming into the faith in Men in Stoneboro, also suggests that while maybe because Christians were not doing polygamy, maybe that, maybe that meant, that there were a more even additional unmarried widows for for that reason.
Marriage to be lifelong. And Jesus is certainly saying here that divorce is not compulsory never compulsory even in the case of adultery. The purple thing is for the couple to to reconcile.
And that kind of gives a better.
A better setting for marriage. Then, what was the thing? I was describing where I may be husbands would feel if their wives run faith that was sort of expected them to get a divorce. If that's the silo pressure is not there than that's, that's a that's a good thing.
That divorce should be avoided unless the erring partner stubbornly, refuses to repent is God's intention that the converge be lifelong required.
and any cause divorces are
Are not valid and hear. So then, in this case, then basically, Jesus ends up agreeing with shama in this case. It's not that we always agreed with. Am I I don't think I'm going to take a nap old to know about that. My sensibility probably was more often than hell outside, but in this case is on channel eyesight. In one. In one part of this is a little bit stricter than Shannon lied because he says that he has any cars, divorces are actually invalid and Sam. I didn't go that far. I basically hella light in Chandler at judges. You know, I accepted you tell this divorce certificates.
Okay, so some of the extra back on, we get here is that The issues involving marriage contracts, based on Nexus 2110. It's embarrassing. And I am I finding persuasive. Those really weren't controversial. So Jesus wasn't addressing those in Matthew 19. He's not saying that. If you're being beaten to death, you should stay and hang in there. Divorce, you know is sometimes necessary.
And you saying, it's just the any cause divorces that are invalid not enough voices on legitimate grounds. One thing that backs up in stone Brewers. Conclusion. Here is what Paula teaches. If you go to 1st Corinthians 7, no pause in the different setting. Right in the, in the Greco-Roman world. In the Greco-Roman World. Divorce was done by just somebody leaving. So if you're wrong and you want to divorce your wife, you say, bye-bye, I'm going. Or if you're, if you're the one who owns the house, you kick the other partner out and then then then it's done.
And of course Paul, you know, it's not approving of that and talking to the Corinthians.
Embassy in Seoul in the 1st Corinthians 7 verse 12, to 15. What I want to read, and I'm breaking into the middle of this, but he's talking about issues about marriage and divorce. So he said to the rest, I say Okay, so the married I give this command, not I but the Lord the wife should not separate from her husband, right? Jesus said in a marriage is supposed to be on to the rest. I say I am not the Lord that if any believer has a wife, is an unbeliever and she consents to live with him. He should not divorce her.
And if any woman has a, husband is an unbeliever and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him.
Then in verse 14, he says, but if the unbelieving partner separates let it be. So in such a case, the brother or sister is not bound, it's the piece that God has called you. So he's talking about a scenario where a Jesus follower is married to someone who isn't that partner decides to do a Roman divorce and take off.
In that situation, that's a that's really talking about the Exodus 21:10 grounds, in that case, the person who left is really neglecting the other person. They broke in the marriage contract, that's a legitimate divorce Paula saying because he says, In such a case that brother-sister is not bound. In other words, you can have your free to remarry, if that's happened. By the time that you know, if somebody has left you you couldn't do anything about it.
It's okay for you to go on and remarry what Paul is saying and that's in agreement with a model where in Matthew 19, Jesus is just speaking against any cause divorce and not divorce in general. Now this I'm just giving a little part of a big story but it shows of the things you can get into when you start looking into the background of a different teaching, you can come into insights and possibilities that would not have not have occurred to you initially and that's certainly very valuable we want to try and understand what Jesus meant as well as we can. And we have the tools now to be able to do that. There was any literature is easier to access than it's ever been, as people in this room can tell you, there's a website called zafaria, right? You could you, if you do a search online, you know, if any of these Mission 8 track tapes, that I mentioned that we just pull up an English translation. Right at the top of the search engine from from Safari. That didn't exist on no 15 years ago. Right? That it's a tremendous school now and Rob has begun working with them. a yum, a book that used to be just in German Hey, you got that gives form goes to the New Testament and looks at rabbinic literature connections for everything in the New Testament. The Big 3 volume work by two guys. In instructing, bilderback used to the L mean in German now, it's been translated to English. Tell David instone-brewer at the introduction to that to that set of books and Route. Rob has begun digging into that and using it profitably too. And I think, in fact, you probably worked out some of the percaya vote connections. May be based on the references in Stockton Builder, Beck promised it to bring out to, as many parallels if he could. All right, I'm done. Thanks.
Okay, questions for Doug.
autobiographical elements of Paul's keeping that at age, 18, Riverside student, camellia flower, Mary is what month
Punishment on Paul to discredit any of the Major Leagues with you or see illegitimate Ballroom. She what what do you think about Paul's pasta? Mean we know that Paul wasn't married when he was doing his his journey. So Peters wondering was there something autobiographical in Paul's ruling when when Paul was young did he marry? And then his wife left him? Yeah, I don't know. But it's interesting to think about, isn't it? Just the course with with Polly, doesn't say too much stuff about it, right? He says the apostles were allowed to marry light like Peter. What about you know? It's okay. It's okay to be married but but what's the backstory on that? That's a really good question. Question.
So, just some comment on that there. There may be married to that. In this sense that Paul did say he was up, he came from the strictest sect of the Pharisees, which would probably be there by 8 and given that if that's correct. Then taking the Genesis as a command to marry. At that would pull into that. So there's that
Anyone else?
Alrighty.